I think it was Mufti Abu Lubaba Shah Mansoor who interprets this Hadeeth to apply to Saudi National Guard (not Saudi Army) and he uses the words “National Guard”. When you actually read about the differences between Saudi Army and Saudi National Guard, it becomes clear why this Hadeeth could possibly apply to Saudi National Guard

Saudi Arabia really has two different armies. The Saudi Arabia National Guard (SANG) is not like the US National Guard. It is a tribal force forged out of those tribal elements loyal to the Saud Family. The SANG's mission is to protect the royal family from internal rebellion and the other Saudi Army, should the need arise. It is also a counterbalance within the royal family to Sudairi control over the regular armed forces.

The Saudi Arabian National Guard, also known as the White Army, has been a critical pillar of the Saudi state dating back to the kingdom's founding. For over fifty years, the National Guard has adapted to the region's changing political and military landscapes and helped the House of Saud maintain a leading role on the Arabian Peninsula. Today, the Saudi Arabian National Guard is once again at a juncture, because Saudi Arabia's role in the Middle East and North Africa is changing rapidly.

The ummah is at war with itself. What other way is there to describe the brutal bloodletting by Muslims of Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Turkey, and, of course, Pakistan.

To be fair, the ummah has not mattered for a long time to the governments or peoples of Muslim lands. State-to-state relations among Muslim countries have been astonishingly independent of religious identity. They have depended instead upon perceived self-interest, domestic politics and the whims of rulers. Just look at the evidence.

Pakistan was created on a religious premise. But, in the days of the Suez Crisis of 1956, Pakistan’s position was ambiguous. It refused to side with Gamal Abdel Nasser after he nationalised the Suez Canal and threw out the British. On the other hand, India was active in the Non-Aligned Movement, fully pro-Arab, and loud in support of liberating Palestine. To show gratitude, King Saud bin Abdul Aziz paid a state visit to India and declared that Indian Muslims were being treated well. There was outrage across Pakistan. Newspapers exploded in anger when Jawaharlal Nehru, on his return visit to Riyadh, was greeted by the king and with street banners in Riyadh bearing the slogan rasul-ul-salam (messenger of peace).

It is time to give the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation a decent burial.

Dawn’s editorial of Dec 1, 1956, bitterly criticised the Arabs and “Nasser’s hatred of Pakistan, and love of Bharat and its Nehru”. It went on to suggest that such sensate bias and blind prejudice “may well be examined by psychiatrists”. In other words, the Arab world’s greatest hero of the moment was denounced as crazy.

Today, Pakistan has disputes with both its Muslim neighbours, Afghanistan and Iran. Iran occasionally lobs artillery shells over to Pakistan, as does Afghanistan. Pakistan has reciprocated with its artillery, while PAF jets brought down an Iranian drone last month. Ironically, Pakistan has excellent relations with one of its neighbours — China, a communist state that has banned the beard and burqa in its only Muslim-dominated province. India has good relations with both Iran and Afghanistan. And, India’s trade with China far exceeds Pakistan’s trade with China.

It is not just Pakistan. The Muslim monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both Wahabi, are practically at war with each other now. Teeny tiny Qatar, say the Saudis, is acting too big for its boots and cannot conduct its own foreign policy. Qatar has dismissed the Saudi-UAE demand to close down Al Jazeera, the Arab world’s only independent news source. In response, all Qataris and their families, as well as 15,000 dancing Qatari camels, have been expelled from Saudi Arabia.

Last year, Saudi Arabia’s highest civilian award was conferred upon Hindu fundamentalist Narendra Modi by King Salman. The Saudi king left Kashmir and pellet guns unmentioned.

Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen shows the emptiness of the ummah notion. Directed against one of the world’s poorest Muslim countries, it has so far has killed 7,600 and wounded 42,000 Muslims. Most casualties have resulted from air strikes of the Saudi-led multinational coalition. Pakistan has shown little concern. I have yet to see a single TV news report or evening talk show discussing the Yemen war.

Ending Israeli occupation of Palestine was once the ummah’s grandest cause that cut through the Shia-Sunni divide. But now, Saudi Arabia is fast nearing rapprochement with Israel. Both countries see Iran as the greater enemy. After the failed Arab Spring, Sisi’s Egypt and the Gulf’s monarchies fear Iran as an insurrectionary power and prefer to work with Israel. Palestine is unmentioned.

Where does this leave the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose job is to bring together and represent the ummah? Based in Saudi Araba, it has 57 member states and calls itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world.” The OIC has had nothing to say about wars that have consumed Syria, Iraq, Libya, or Yemen. Nor is it relevant to any other conflict between Muslim states or that within them. It has yet to give a single cent to desperate refugees who, instead, must rely on the West.

Pakistan bought into the OIC fantasy early on. But the euphoria of the 1974 Lahore meeting organised by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has gone with the wind. What is left is the magnificent flag-adorned building on Constitution Avenue in Islamabad that serves as the headquarters of Comstech, the highest scientific body of the OIC, for which Pakistan pays the lion’s share of its operating expenses.

Examine: Science & the ummah

Comstech is charged with promoting science within the ummah. This is a futile and misplaced effort because science does not have a religion. Add to this the abysmal quality of science in Muslim countries (with Turkey and Iran only partly excluded). Prime minister Suhrawardy once famously remarked, “zero plus zero plus zero is after all still zero”. While he said this of the Arab bloc during the Suez crisis, it’s still truer about scientific cooperation.

It is time to give the OIC a decent burial and end the fantasy that Comstech can serve as the centre of Muslim science. Among the benefits, Comstech’s staff could be put to good use promoting science in Pakistan with the building turned into a public science library or science exploratorium where Pakistani children could be introduced to the wonders of science.

If Muslim states have paid no attention to the ummah, non-state actors have paid even less. They have slaughtered tens of thousands of co-religionists. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban are like two wings of the same bird. One kills Afghan Muslims, the other kills Pakistani Muslims. One finds shelter in Pakistan, the other in Afghanistan. The militant Islamic State group seems to be everywhere and kills with even less concern. There is no sign any of them will fade away soon.

There is a way for Muslim states and peoples to move forward. This will require creating strong democratic institutions based on equal rights for all citizens, encouraging the participation of women in public life, and respecting equally all Muslim sects as well as other religions, providing space and freedom to individuals and education for all based on science and reason.

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

On the 140th birth anniversary of one of India’s most influential public figures of modern times, eminent sociologist TN Madan ruminates on his star-crossed career to ask a vital question: what happened to transform this ‘ambassador of unity’ into an advocate of Partition in just 25 years?

‘Greatness’ is a value judgment, ‘influence’, an empirical one. Keeping in mind this distinction, it seems to me that one of the many tragic consequences of the partition of India in 1947 (which had by then become unstoppable) has been the thoughtless manner in which educated Indians have gifted away to Pakistan one of world literature’s greatest philosopher-poets, Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), and one of India’s most influential public figures of modern times, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1875/76 – 1948). Why don’t we own and celebrate them?

Iqbal was born and died in India. He did not envisage a subcontinent comprising two antagonistic states. Jinnah was born in India on October 20, 1875 (if we go by school records), or December 25, 1876, according to Pakistan’s official calendar. In either case, 2015-2016 is his 140th birth anniversary year. He died in a colonial mansion in the newly founded Pakistan’s capital city, Karachi, but would rather have died, I believe, in his magnificent Malabar Hill residence in Bombay, a city he served long with distinction and which he loved. His wife was buried there and his daughter was still living there.

When informed by Sri Prakasa, India’s High Commissioner, that Jawaharlal Nehru had asked him to inform Jinnah that his Malabar Hill house would have to be requisitioned by the Government of India (he had himself sold his Delhi house to Ramkrishna Dalmia), his instant response was, “Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart… I still look forward to going back there.” This was not the triumphant Governor-General of Pakistan speaking but a defeated Indian – defeated by a destiny of which he was not the sole maker.

It has been said that it was given to Jinnah to cross swords with the greatest Indian of his time, Gandhi, and win. Was he really a winner? Did he not struggle long and consistently for a united, free India – an India in which common general interests would accommodate particular community interests, and the cultural aspirations and citizenship rights of the Muslims would be guaranteed? This was the very same aspiration as expressed by Iqbal in his much misunderstood 1930 presidential address to the Muslim League: “If an effective principle of cooperation [between communities] is discovered in India, it will bring peace and mutual goodwill to this ancient land which has suffered so long.”

In 1916, Jinnah was 40, and recognised as one of India’s top political leaders. Gandhi, who had only just returned from South Africa, was a novice in Indian politics. Jawaharlal Nehru was not even there yet. Together with Jawaharlal’s father, Motilal, Jinnah negotiated the Lucknow Pact, which saw Congress concede separate electorates and agree to minorities’ representation in legislatures in excess of their share in the population. Addressing the Muslim League later in the same year and in the very same city of Lucknow, famous for its syncretic culture, Jinnah maintained, “The Mussalmans of India would be false to themselves” if they did not share fully “the new hope that is moving India’s patriotic sons today,” or fail “to respond to the call of the country.”

At the time, the elder Nehru considered Jinnah to be, unlike other Muslims, an Indian first and then a Muslim. The two men respected each other. As Gopal Krishna Gokhale famously said, Jinnah had emerged as “the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”

What happened to transform this ambassador of unity into an advocate of Partition in just 25 years? The major reason, it can be argued, was a radicalisation of Indian politics, the replacement of the gradual constitutional means of elite leaders who sought to realise self-rule for India within the British empire by mass movements like civil disobedience and non-cooperation.

Gandhi was the new charismatic leader of India, such as has never been seen before – the Mahatma, who preferred to walk dusty village tracks to sitting in drawing rooms, attired in minimal clothing like the masses he energised and represented. He tried to reach out to the Muslims as well as the Hindus, even embracing the reactionary Khilafat Movement from which the modernist Jinnah distanced himself. Indeed, Jinnah warned Gandhi (as Bal Gangadhar Tilak had done earlier) not to mix religion and politics.

Jawaharlal chose to be Gandhi’s follower, notwithstanding serious ideological differences, and even persuaded his father to go along with them. The justification for the induction of the masses into the freedom movement was not understood in the same terms by Gandhi and Jawaharlal. For the former, it was an ethical stance, for the latter, the force of economic logic. The days of gradualist constitutionalists like Jinnah were coming to a close.

This tectonic shift in Indian politics was on show at the 1920 annual session of the Congress in Nagpur. Gandhi moved a resolution setting “the attainment of swaraj” by “all legitimate and peaceful means” as the goal, provoking dissent from Jinnah, the advocate of gradualism and constitutional politics. But he was not allowed to voice it. The delegates shouted him down, calling him a “political imposter,” nothing less, and insisting that he refer to Gandhi as ‘Mahatma’! And the Mahatma just kept quiet.

Rebuffed, Jinnah resigned from the Congress, but continued to negotiate for a united, pluralist India. Speaking in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925, he declared, “I am a nationalist first, a nationalist second, and a nationalist last.” Other travails and traumas, however, awaited him. A new generation of provincially rooted conservative Muslim politicians, many of them landlords, found him too haughty and remote. They spearheaded Muslim separatism in North India and elsewhere.

In the mid-1930s, Jinnah decided to leave India (he was lonely in both his public and private life), and settle down in England – a defeated man who had great abilities, high ambitions, the respect of his peers, and public recognition. Indeed as the perceptive biographer B.R. Nanda observes, “Jinnah’s political career seemed star-crossed… it was a strange irony that whenever he was about to reach the top of the political ladder, events beyond his control brought him down”.

But self-chosen exile brought him no relief. Jinnah was called back to India to assume the presidentship of the Muslim League and eventually he became the Quaid-i-Azam. Even as late as September 28, 1939, he said at the annual dinner of the Old Boys of Osmania University, “I have always believed in a Hindu-Muslim pact, but not a pact that will mean a destruction of the one and a survival of the other.” But it was too late. He had to compromise his ideological principles and even change his Western sartorial style! He now became the proponent of the two-nation theory: “The Mussalmans are a nation by any definition.” The Pakistan resolution (so called) was adopted by the Muslim League at Lahore on March 24, 1940, demanding that “the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority… should be grouped together to constitute Independent States [sic].” The name Pakistan and the idea of a single state were not mentioned.
The partition of India was announced on June 3, 1947. Gandhi and Jinnah were both defeated men, although Jinnah was deemed to be the victor. Pakistan was born on August 14.

Did Jinnah have qualms of conscience? Even after 1940 and up to 1946 he did not quite give up his vision of a politically united, federally loose, culturally pluralist, secular, democratic India. It has been argued that he used the demand for Pakistan as a negotiating tool, but it was too late to reverse the tide of events. The demand for Pakistan had become, as the historian Farzana Shaikh put it, “the consensus of the community.”

The partition of India was announced on June 3, 1947. Gandhi and Jinnah were both defeated men, although Jinnah was deemed to be the victor. Pakistan was born on August 14. Three days earlier (August 11), Jinnah had addressed a hastily summoned Constituent Assembly (comprising members of the parent body belonging to the seceding provinces), and exhorted his audience to “forget their past,” “bury the hatchet,” and “work together in the spirit that every one of you,” irrespective of differences of various kinds, “is first, second, and last a citizen of the state with equal rights, privileges and obligations.” Divisiveness had been, he said, “the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence.” The lesson to be learned was this: “You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Death a year later put an end to Jinnah’s vision of a multi-religious society and a secular state. Significantly, Maulana Maudoodi, founder of the fundamentalist Jamaat-i-Islami, refused to lead the burial rites. Soon after Jinnah’s death, Pakistan became an Islamic state and Pakistani Muslims, although privileged compared to non-Muslims, splintered along sectarian lines.

Did he foresee this possibility? He was not a believer or practitioner of Islam, although his sister Fatima claimed that he died with the confession of the faith on his lips. This is rather hard to believe. Did he regret the partition of India? According to his doctor, he did, calling it “the biggest blunder” of his life. He is said to have told Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan: “If now I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again”. Again, not wholly believable, but plausible in view of the carnage that went hand in hand with Independence. The words may not be exactly his, but the sentiments could surely have been. That in any case is how I read the story of his remarkable but star-crossed life.

As a talented young man in London, Jinnah had had many dreams. One of them, it has been said, was a career in theatre to play the role of Shakespeare’s romantic hero Romeo at the Old Vic. In his lived life, however, like all the tragic heroes created by the bard of Stratford-on-Avon – Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Othello – Jinnah had a fatal flaw in his character. Was it egotism? Was it hubris? Whatever it was, he couldn’t escape the consequences.

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

(1) Whenever Maulana Mehmood Madani Sahab says anything related to partition and Pakistan then many people from Pakistan react rather vehemently.

I used to think that the Pakistanis are refusing to see the contingency of Indian Muslims.

Now I have to change my opinion.

(2) We have a professor in our university who retired last month. He very profusely heaps abuses on Maulvis. I always defended the Maulwis against his attack and assault. Now onwards it will be difficult for me to do so.

(3) Islam and Muslims are under attack globally and they are so in India. I thought that external attack is more serious and vicious and hence in spite of our internal differences we should focus upon the external threat and devise ways to protect Islam and Muslims against these assaults. After the discussion on the other thread where a brother opines that Muslims of India simply should surrender before the RSS fascist forces and the video linked above I have to change my course. I think we got to set our internal relations before we think of dealing with the external detractors.

(4) Sir Syed was worried about the status of Muslims if the Indian majority community comes into power. His successors kept doing the same. They, in the form of the Muslim League, kept demanding safeguards for the rights of Muslims in India.

(5) The Congress kept rejecting these demands. Just a little before the partition the problem nearly got sorted out in the form of the Cabinet Mission Plan.

(6) Then the mighty player Nehru sabotaged it at the last moment.

(7) Jinnah pressed for the partition of India and got a fractured country.

(8) Muslims of India ever since have feared that the bill for partition will come to them and their fears have proved to be amply true.

(9) Not only they are hated for partition but the new angle is that once Pakistan was created what they are doing in India.

(10) Some people, this sinner too was included amongst them for a long time, thought and many still do so that if the Muslims of India will behave in a servile manner towards the majority they will be safe in India.

(11) The brother in the other thread thinks in the same manner and so does Maulana Mehmood Madani.

(12) No one is paying an attention to some glaring facts on the ground. For example if the Muslims of west Punjab, Sindh, Baluchsitan and NWFP went ahead to get a separate country for themselves then what right RSS or the communal Hindus or for that matter even the Congress has to be angry on them? What is the logic for slapping the bill on Muslims of India?

(13) It is nearly universally expected in India that Muslims of India should hate Pakistan and should rejoice when Pakistan is abused in India. They should also rejoice when Pakistan was broken into two to create BD. The consolidate deal in such issues is the question : Are you a Muslim first or an Indian first?

(14) It is an uphill task to talk to Indian Muslims who advocate a surrender before the majority.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

I feel so hesitant to do that,but then,probably it is because,me and you and the likes of us,share common concerns regarding the issues of ummah. We do stumble upon each other. I don’t know what shall I call it ? Putting heads together or need for a shoulder to cry on :(

In case you did not know it,let me tell you that I am not an Indian Muslim (it does not stop me from commenting on the problems of Indian Muslims because I feel pain in my heart when I find them in trouble). I am from a small,backward city in the North west of Pakistan. We people are considered to be a martial race. Why then I keep advising restraint and patience to you ? Simply because that is how wars are conducted and won...

Pashtuns may or may not be brave but they are resilient and unlike the common impression very flexible in their strategy.They fight where they can but they as easily retreat where they can’t.They value the life of each of their soldiers and would never want to waste them in heedless adventures.They fight to kill,not to be killed.They patiently inch forward towards final victory with clear mind and cold,calculated and logical military strategy.

I agree Maripat,that surrender is not an option,that appeasement almost never work,that resistance must not stop,protests must be registered...and where possible and necessary some fear of God must be put into the hearts of opponents by show of physical strength...but all that should be done with clear political goals in mind. You have to live with the majority in peace,in a mutually agreed arrangement without compromising on principles or else create another Pakistan or if it comes to a worst case scenario ‘take up arms and start a civil war’...which one of these scenario,s look more logical to you ? Muslims are scattered all over India,creation of another Pakistan,(don’t know where geographically?) may save a few but put most in danger,armed uprising against state will never succeed and you will loss whatever little standing you have on the political landscape of the country,so we are left with the options I presented before :”intelligent use of the strengths and weaknesses of Indian democracy”...”smart use of the power of your vote”— and “trying to win over the hearts and minds of the wiser elements of the society”.

We expect people like you to guide the ummah and the community and not to be carried away with emotions. If my words are not to your liking I apologise :)

Many good points in that brother ALIF. I still have to reply to this post and your earlier post and many of the posts of brother siprao. I shall return to these ASAP.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

A survey is doing rounds in Indian social media circles at this time. According to it India is the most dangerous country for women.

One post taunted that even Pakistan is at sixth number.

That is no consolation. Pakistan should not have been on the list at all. It was a country created in the name of Islam. Islam ideally should give the best possible government. That means, in particular, that women must feel safest there.

So Pakistan being sixth when India is first dangerous country for women is merely a small consolation.

What has happened?

I think I know the answer. If there is a rape then there should be swift legal procedure to take the rapist to his (yup his, his, his - it has to be a man, an animal actually) logical conclusion. We are talking about death penalty.

Pakistan can not do that. The burden on Pakistan's collective mind is not Islam. It is liberal, democratic, so called modernist, so called progressive society.

In such a society when there is an incident of rape the secular, democratic, the so called modernist, the so called progressive rats come out of the wood work and start declaring that they are outraged by the episode of rape but they are against the death penalty.

And Pakistan does not have the moral courage to override this jamboree and go for what Allah SWT has told us to do.

The result? Well Pakistan is quantitatively better than India but not qualitatively when it comes to women's security.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2-0Like x 1Informative x 1

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

I had a colleague in the university who has recently retired from service.

His agenda is to revive the Muslim League in north India. Muslim League already exists in south - the state of Kerala. Remember south India is far away from both the Pakistan and Bangladesh borders. The result is that the effects of the 1947 partition of India do not reach there in the same severity as in north India. (In fact the Gujarat and Maharashtra hatred for Pakistan and Bangladesh is much higher than what you will find amongst the Punjabis of Punjab and the Bengalis of West Bengal. But I digress.)

Owing to the hatred for Pakistan and for Muslim League in north India I do not consider it as a viable idea to think of ML revival. But my friend is rather persistent. Foolishness knows no bounds.

In this connection a few more bits and pieces of information can be spread. I am busy reading Mukhtar Masood's book on the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran called Lauh-e-Ayyam (Diary). It is tiring narrative but the author ends up giving you so much of information and background on any issue that he writes about that you are elevated to a position where you can make your own opinion about the situation. I shall try to record my impressions about Pakistan-Iran friendship from tha tbook when I get time, Lord Most High willing.

A friend of mine, another university colleague, too was reading the same book but left it in between after he laid his hands on another Mukhtar Masood book called the Harf-e-Shauq (Word of Passion). This one is about Aligarh, Sir Syed, Pakistan. Naturally it has important insight about the creation of Pakistan.

One bit can be mentioned right away.

As the independence, and hence the creation of Pakistan, was nearing one question became of paramount concern for Muslim League in general and MA Jinnah in particular. What will happen to AMU after partition? It was clear that Aligarh could not be part of Pakistan under any plausible division. AMU will be left behind in India.

What does Mukhtar Masood say on the issue? Well he says that creation of Pakistan and maintenance of AMU are two different and disconnected issues. this is what one gathers from Harf-e-Shauq. Honestly speaking in my mind there can not be any other opinion and I always felt it. As a result I was always surprised at Muslim league fans in Aligarh. After this input from Harf-e-Shauq via my colleague I personally need no further evidence that Muslim League supporters in our campus are simply the idiots who have failed to make a realistic assessment of the ground reality, particularly the Hindu hatred for Islam, Muslims, Pakistan and the League.

Coming back to Mukhtar Masood's stance one can see rather starkly that he abdicated the responsibility when it came to not only AMU but Indian Muslims.

Sadly speaking Indian Muslims, though completely aware of the issue, have not made up their own mind about this very critical issue.

I have.

here is my stance. There were two streams of thought in Indian Muslims before partition and these streams were present in AMU too. One was nationalist spirit followed, amongst others the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, and the other was the Muslim League.

in the years leading upto the partition the Muslim League support base got better of the nationalist stream of Congress, the Khwaja Family and the Jamiat and the latter voice got subdued. Of course it did not die.

We Muslims of India today are the successors to the nationalist stream.

We do not deny that Muslims are a separate social, cultural as well as religious group that is different from the Hindus but it in no way amount to create a separate country. It is like the Dalits being different from the Brahmins but that does not amount to creation of a separate country.

I have to square this narrative with MA Jinnah's action as communicated to me by my colleague mentioned above. After 1944 Jinnah did not come to Aligarh. that was his strategy to separate Aligarh from Pakistan movement for Aligarh's own good.

I suppose brothers from Pakistan as well as Indian Muslims should take these angles into account.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+0-0Agree x 1Disagree x 1

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

After having tried to get insight and following other's instincts I now feel a bit irritated at myself for not following my own instincts.

Dil mein haq jalwa numa tha mujhe ma'aloom na tha

I know the truth in my heart but I was not aware of it.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

It is a good reminder of responsibilities and duties to the Muslims of both India and Pakistan.

I myself usually talk in similar tone - that we both, Pakistani and Indian Muslims, have failed in our duties or have felt betrayed. Or we have felt that we have not done our best.

But that is not the whole picture certainly. I am sure there are positive points for both sides. We have to look for these.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

back to top

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah